> But when two species are
> CLOSELY RELATED, similar enough in form to be placed in the same genus, size
> doesn't have to matter -- the minke whale and the blue whale are in the same
> genus, despite their difference in size.
Well, here I go on whales again.. ACTUALLY, new cladograms based on analysis of
the cetacean cytochrome 'b' (in mitochondrial DNA?) show the rorqual genus
_Balaenoptera_ to be polyphyletic. _Eschrictius_ (grey whale) seems to be among
the rorquals (hence that near non-existent fossil record), and close to
_Megaptera_ (the humpbacks) and the traditional _Balaenoptera_ (Sei, Fin,
Tropical [Bryde's] and Blue).
The piked [minke = a baaadddd name] whales are an out-group to this clade, and
create a major problem in being so. Because they appear so distant to
_Balaenoptera_ true, maintaining their position within that genus (the
traditional position) makes _Balaenoptera_ polyphyletic. This little enigma has
yet to be resolved, and not everyone agrees with the data produced by analysis
of genetic chemistry. Furthermore, a great deal of resistance will be met with
any attempt to remove minke whales from _Balaenoptera_. I'm presently trying
to sort the mess out with Arnasson and Gullberg, two workers that support this
typology.
Anyway, there are plenty of other genera with big size disparities between
members, so don't think I'm knocking that argument. But, then, the new Maxwell-
Witmer evidence proves '_Deinonychus to be more different from _Velociraptor_
than anyone had ever realized.'. Yes, it's back to dinosaurs....
"Well your worship, looks like you managed to keep me around for a little while
longer"
DARREN NAISH